A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Technology
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SSTO propulsion overview



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 25th 04, 05:36 PM
Zoltan Szakaly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SSTO propulsion overview

I agree that hypersonic SCRAMJET propulsion research is completely
pointless.

But there is a region between standstill and about mach 6 where air
breathing propulsion is very attractive. Simple calculations show that
you can achieve a factor of 10 savings in fuel consumption if you use
ramjet like engines.

If your design is correct you get a 15 to 1 air fuel mixture ratio
which results in an Isp of about 4000 at standstill. As you start to
move the mass flow increases and the engine leans out, just getting
better and better with speed, up to about 2km/s at which point it is
just easier to close the air intakes and use on-board oxidizer.

There have been numerous real hardware experiments and proofs of
concept that show the performance of ramjets, ejector ramjets, strut
jets etc. An example of an air augmented rocket is the russian GNOM
missile see:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/gnom.htm

This missile has less than half the mass of a rocket.

Basically my calculations show that you can save the entire first
stage if you build an air breathing booster. I have actually invented
and built an engine, see at vtol.net that gets an Isp of 4000 at
standstill. An air breathing rocket can be built that uses air first
and then switches to on board oxidizer and gets into orbit with an
overall mass ratio of 6. See also vtol.net/air.htm

I keep repeating myself, nobody ever reads the archives. It is very
easy to search for stuff and read it.

Zoltan
  #12  
Old January 26th 04, 12:09 AM
johnhare
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SSTO propulsion overview


"Zoltan Szakaly" wrote in message
om...
I agree that hypersonic SCRAMJET propulsion research is completely
pointless.

Agree.

But there is a region between standstill and about mach 6 where air
breathing propulsion is very attractive. Simple calculations show that
you can achieve a factor of 10 savings in fuel consumption if you use
ramjet like engines.

Your simple calculations are a bit off. A dense fuel SSTO would
have a mass ratio of 16. Even from mach 6, the upper stage
would have a mass ratio of about 6. Since you mention this below,
you must know better. This would be a factor
of 2 &2/3 if the ramjet used no fuel at all. It also does not
include getting the ramjet up to supersonic speed where it
becomes operational. Also, fuel is much cheaper than the
hardware it burns in.

If your design is correct you get a 15 to 1 air fuel mixture ratio
which results in an Isp of about 4000 at standstill. As you start to
move the mass flow increases and the engine leans out, just getting
better and better with speed, up to about 2km/s at which point it is
just easier to close the air intakes and use on-board oxidizer.

Your exhaust velocity will be on the order of 1,000 m/s, which gives
a real Isp in the 1,500 range. This is at standstill if you compress
the air sufficiently. As you move faster, inlet drag becomes a factor
which heavily penalizes lean operation, which reduces effective Isp
from your engines.

There have been numerous real hardware experiments and proofs of
concept that show the performance of ramjets, ejector ramjets, strut
jets etc. An example of an air augmented rocket is the russian GNOM
missile see:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/gnom.htm

This missile has less than half the mass of a rocket.

All of your examples seem to be about fuel consumption,
ignoring the increased mass, cost, and complexity of the hardware and
flight profile. A Saturn V class rocket might have $1M in fuel.
This is not a consideration in the current market.

Basically my calculations show that you can save the entire first
stage if you build an air breathing booster. I have actually invented
and built an engine, see at vtol.net that gets an Isp of 4000 at
standstill. An air breathing rocket can be built that uses air first
and then switches to on board oxidizer and gets into orbit with an
overall mass ratio of 6. See also vtol.net/air.htm

What is the T/W of this 4,000 second engine? Have you calculated
inlet mass at all? Are you aware of the mass and complexity of effective
supersonic inlets? How are you compressing the air?

I keep repeating myself, nobody ever reads the archives. It is very
easy to search for stuff and read it.

Quit repeating yourself and say something new and convincing.
Some of us have read on the subject a bit.

Zoltan


  #13  
Old January 26th 04, 02:27 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SSTO propulsion overview

In article ,
Azt28 wrote:
And are hypersonics a good idea for anything at all?

For high-speed cruise within the atmosphere -- assuming you have some
urgent reason to want to do that -- they look promising...


I think the sonic boom forbids any hypersonics aircraft service.


Not if it's military. And there are some theoretical possibilities for
low-boom or no-boom flight, although whether they will work at hypersonic
speeds is unclear.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |
  #14  
Old January 26th 04, 02:36 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SSTO propulsion overview

In article ,
Zoltan Szakaly wrote:
But there is a region between standstill and about mach 6 where air
breathing propulsion is very attractive. Simple calculations show that
you can achieve a factor of 10 savings in fuel consumption if you use
ramjet like engines.


Unfortunately, that's much more attractive for cruising missions than for
accelerating ones, because the price is much heavier engines. Even at
modest altitudes, the oxygen content of air is *four orders of magnitude*
less, per unit volume, than that of LOX. So you inevitably need big heavy
machinery to handle air.

(If you thought liquid hydrogen was a "fluffy" propellant, awkward to
handle because of its bulk, atmospheric air is enormously worse.)

There have been numerous real hardware experiments and proofs of
concept that show the performance of ramjets, ejector ramjets, strut
jets etc. An example of an air augmented rocket is the russian GNOM
missile...


Yeah, they're fairly interesting for *cruise* missions. But that's a
very different class of problem.

This missile has less than half the mass of a rocket.


Which is of almost no importance, for launchers. The added mass of the
rocket is almost all LOX. Liquid oxygen is one of the cheapest substances
on Earth. In particular, it's much cheaper than airbreathing engines.

Basically my calculations show that you can save the entire first
stage if you build an air breathing booster.


That's plausible. But so what? You've turned a rocket first stage into
a jet first stage. In the process, you've made it harder to build and
more difficult to develop. For what? To save *LOX*? WHY???
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |
  #16  
Old January 26th 04, 10:58 AM
johnhare
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SSTO propulsion overview


"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Zoltan Szakaly wrote:
But there is a region between standstill and about mach 6 where air
breathing propulsion is very attractive. Simple calculations show that
you can achieve a factor of 10 savings in fuel consumption if you use
ramjet like engines.


Unfortunately, that's much more attractive for cruising missions than for
accelerating ones, because the price is much heavier engines. Even at
modest altitudes, the oxygen content of air is *four orders of magnitude*
less, per unit volume, than that of LOX. So you inevitably need big heavy
machinery to handle air.


What is the maximum possible T/W you see from a turbine based
air breathing engine. How inevitable is the question. Do you see
a fundamental T/W limit at 100, 40, 15, or some other number?

At what T/W do air breathing engines become performance
competative with the lower stage rocket thrust they replace?
Competative does not necessarily mean desirable in this case,
just not a penalty.

During a previous discussion I accepted that 120/M seemed to
be a reasonable break even for an air breather that supplies all
the acceleration from the ground. I suggested a few weeks ago
that for a VTVL SSTO, 28 to 43 might be a reasonable requirement
for units designed for the landing mass only, not operating supersonic at
all during launch phase. Would you agree with these requirements
for break even performance? How much better would they have to
get to be desirable as opposed to break even?

What is the performance requirement for an ICH tee shirt? :-)



  #20  
Old January 27th 04, 11:08 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default SSTO propulsion overview

In article ,
johnhare wrote:
...the oxygen content of air is *four orders of magnitude*
less, per unit volume, than that of LOX. So you inevitably need big heavy
machinery to handle air.


What is the maximum possible T/W you see from a turbine based
air breathing engine. How inevitable is the question. Do you see
a fundamental T/W limit at 100, 40, 15, or some other number?


I'm not a turbine-engine guy, so it's a little hard for me to call. My
understanding is that the fighter-engine guys are now in the 10-11 range,
and it's taken them thirty years to get there from the 7-8 range. The air
temperature at the turbine inlet is now well above the melting point of
the turbine blades (!). (The blades are single crystals of very stubborn
alloys, with cooling vents blowing [relatively] cool air out onto their
surfaces to keep the hot stuff at a distance.) That technology isn't too
far from its limits. 15, maybe?

Radical design changes might perhaps take it farther. But that's harder
to predict. I'd be surprised to see 25. (I do get surprised sometimes.)

Systems which don't use turbomachinery can do better on mass, but they
have a hard time doing as well on air handling, and they generally don't
work at low speeds. (Mind you, the turbomachinery tends not to work very
well beyond about Mach 3.)

Hybrid systems, rocket/airbreather combinations, can do still better.
The question there is whether there's enough Isp gain to be worth it.

At what T/W do air breathing engines become performance
competative with the lower stage rocket thrust they replace?
Competative does not necessarily mean desirable in this case,
just not a penalty.


Given the other constraints they impose -- for example, they tend to need
reasonably clean airflow, which is not easy to come by on the surface of a
lower stage -- I think I'd call for at least 40, and that's not going to
be easy, especially as speed builds up. (Good LOX/kerosene rocket engines
with sea-level nozzles are up around 125.)

During a previous discussion I accepted that 120/M seemed to
be a reasonable break even for an air breather that supplies all
the acceleration from the ground. I suggested a few weeks ago
that for a VTVL SSTO, 28 to 43 might be a reasonable requirement
for units designed for the landing mass only, not operating supersonic at
all during launch phase. Would you agree with these requirements
for break even performance?


I wouldn't strongly *disagree*, but that reflects limited feel for the
problem rather than deep conviction that those are good numbers. :-)
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A revolutionary propulsion system asps Space Shuttle 49 December 21st 03 10:25 PM
Rudolphi Named NASA Space Shuttle Propulsion Manager Ron Baalke Space Shuttle 1 November 18th 03 04:16 PM
Rudolphi Named NASA Space Shuttle Propulsion Manager Ron Baalke Space Station 1 November 18th 03 04:16 PM
Ion Engine Records No Tuneups, No Problems Ron Baalke Technology 3 July 31st 03 10:03 AM
Accelerator Turbojet for SSTO johnhare Technology 0 July 9th 03 10:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.